Low staff-to-infant ratio at daycare: Worth the extra cost?

[mrsnamemustache]

We are starting to look into daycare for our child who will be about 6 months when he begins daycare. From what I can gather, the cost of daycare  in this region is closely related to the ratio of staff to child (which makes sense). It seems that, legally, infants must have at least 1 staff member per 5 babies. Some facilities, however, have a ratio closer to 1:3. We visited a place that looks great, has a reasonable price for the area (Triangle region of NC) at about $900/month, and has a 1:5 ratio. It seems that all the other places close to our home cost at least $1200/month, but tend to have better ratios (1:3 or 1:4).

So, my question is: how much does the staff to child ratio matter, particularly for infants? Is it really worth an extra $4,000 per year? Obviously, if safety were an issue I would be willing to pay more, but I'm not sure if it is a matter of safety or a matter of ideas about how much attention babies should get and fear of negative consequences of less attention. Thoughts?

[MandalayVA]

And you need daycare why?

[dailycycle]

1:4 ratio is required in CA, so that's all I have seen.  It probably depends a bit on how organized the caregivers are and how demanding the babies are.  With my first, I often saw babies crying for attention and being somewhat ignored because the caregivers were just busy with diapers.  With my second, I haven't seen that happening.  The caregivers seem more like old pros and the babies there seem pretty easy (perhaps again because of the caregivers).  Personally 1:5 seems like too high a ratio for the under 12 month group.

[frugal rph]

I would definitely pay extra for a lower ratio.  One person trying to take care of 5 babies sounds impossible to me.  The ratio where I live is 4:1 and even that seems challenging.  I was lucky to find another mom to watch my baby.  Have you considered trying that?

[cpa cat]

I don't have kids... but I absolutely believe that it's worth paying extra to have the lowest possible staff-to-infant ratio. Move your child to a less expensive daycare in six months to a year, when he's 12-18 months.

The more eyes, the more likely it is for someone to notice if your baby is in some kind of physical distress, the less likely someone is going to get distracted when they're supposed to be checking on your sleeping baby, etc.

I'd definitely pay $4,000 extra to have the comfort of a few more adults around during that first year.

[calimom]

And you need daycare why?

I'm going to venture a guess so that both parents are able to work full time.  In regards to the ratio question, I believe the lower staff:infant ratios are best, and worth the additional cost.  When visiting daycares, it's always advisable to have a "good feeling" about the place.  Is it clean?  Are the children generally happy? Are the workers pleasant?  Are there bright colors, nice toys and equipment for the little people to have plenty of stimulation?

Good luck!

[Freedomin5]

Agree with the other posters, the lower the ratio, the better. Not all the babies in daycare will be six months old. Others will be crawling or walking, and will need more attention. The more kids in daycare, the less time the caregiver will have to devote to your baby, especially if your baby is more easy going/less mobile.

From a developmental perspective, at six months old, they are starting to be more able to interact with the world, and picking up more language. Also should be sitting up, picking things up, and continuing to develop social responses (joint attention, social smiling, etc.) More available staff facilitates increased time spent individually interacting with children (though I realize that this may not be true in every single case).

But at the end of the day, it really comes down to the feel you get after you interview the teachers and observe how they manage the children. I've dropped by unannounced several times at my DD's daycare and sometimes spent a couple hours just sitting in the corner observing the lesson and activities and how the teachers provide structure, discipline, and engage the children. And I also watch how DD reacts when I announce we are going to "school". She still gets very excited and can't wait to get out of her stroller when we arrive at the daycare, so that's a good sign, as she has a completely opposite reaction and heads for the exit whenever we enter the doctor's office where she gets her immunizations.

[tthree]

Where I live government regulated infant ratio is 1:3 (infant is defined as 6wks to 18months).  I would be highly skeptical of anyone willing to provide care at a 1:5 ratio.

[mrsnamemustache]

Thanks for all the thoughts so far.  We'll likely go with a place with a better ratio or do a nanny share/in-home care type situation, at least for the infant years.

It is pretty interesting how much the regulations on infant-to-staff ratio vary by region/country. I learned that in some states (Georgia, I think, and maybe some others) a 1-to-6 ratio is legal.

[soupcxan]

And you need daycare why?

And you need to be a d-bag why?

[MicroRN]

For me, it would be.  Both of our nannies quit working for daycares because they didn't feel like they could really take care of kids the way they wanted to.  If the kids are well cared for and that was what I could afford, I'd go with the 1:5.  However, I'd pay more for a better ratio if I could swing it.  More kids = less time to interact with/hold each of them.  However, I'd go to each of the places you're considering and really feel it out.  A daycare is only as good as the caregivers.  You may find that one place has worse ratios but very happy, engaged caregivers.   

[bogart]

However, I'd go to each of the places you're considering and really feel it out.  A daycare is only as good as the caregivers.  You may find that one place has worse ratios but very happy, engaged caregivers.   

This.  We're some years out from all this (the kid's about halfway through elementary school), but it's interesting  to read all the replies.  We went with an in-home daycare near us for that age (starting at just 2 months) and it was 1 care provider to 5 kids between the ages of 0 and 3.  However, the primary care provider did have her husband there to help part of the day and her teenage daughter ditto, and ... we just liked the place.  We're in the same state as you, and in-home setups are state-regulated, and this one offered part-week options, which was a good fit with our needs (it also made the ratio question you raise a less pressing one for us).  Anyway, long story short, that whole 5:1 thing worked fine for us, and that was, indeed, with plenty of kids older than our own (when he started there), more mobile, etc.  So, yeah, I'd visit the places and see how they "feel" to you.

[MayDay]

I would pay more. 

In MN our ratio was 1 to 4, and even that was crazy sometimes.  We picked our daycare because when we went to visit, it just seemed right.  Our 2 main infant ladies (there were 3 total, but the 3rd tended to come and go) had been there for 5+ years.  That is a good sign. 

Best tip:  when you drop off, or even when you visit, sit there and nurse (if you have a kid who always wants to nurse, which I did, lol).  That gives you 15-20 minutes to sit and talk to the teachers, watch how they interact, etc, without feeling odd for sitting and watching them. 

We visited the most expensive center by far in the area- they had tons of "baby holding" devices.  Like a row of infant carseats on a giant swing so one person could swing/rock 5 babies at once.  It just felt....  bad.  Like the goal wasn't holding the babies, it was shutting them up.  Whereas our center almost always had one of the teachers on the floor with the babies while the other 2 fed/changed/rocked/etc.  So they were getting human interaction. 

[Ceridwen]

Lower ratio is better but it doesn't tell the whole story.  What are the credentials and experience of the staff? I would rather have a 1:5 ratio with someone with an early childhood education degree and 10+ years of experience than 1:3 with someone underqualified and inexperienced.

[Pooplips]

We are currently at a daycare that has a 5:1 ratio but all the infant teachers are amazing. It is more about the care giver than the ratio.

[KCM5]

1:5? That does seem pretty high. Here the requirement is 1:4. I'd pay attention to staff turnover, too. Both infant teachers have been there for 10 years? That'd be awesome.

Our child started daycare at 6 mo at a place that, in general, I wasn't super happy with once she got out of the infant/toddler rooms (we've since moved to a preschool). But the teachers for the infants and toddlers had all been there for years and provided excellent care. I second the recommendation to nurse your kid at drop off/pickup if you're nursing. It helps you get to know the caregivers. Also, I stopped in twice a day for 4 months and once a day for a couple more to nurse my child so I didn't have to pump at work (the daycare was quite close to my work and I work in an office so I could split my hour lunch into two half hour breaks). It was awesome to not have to pump. And getting to know the caregivers really well was a great bonus.

[branman42]

And you need daycare why?

You are the reason people do not want to listen to MMM ideas.

[mm1970]

Lower ratio is better but it doesn't tell the whole story.  What are the credentials and experience of the staff? I would rather have a 1:5 ratio with someone with an early childhood education degree and 10+ years of experience than 1:3 with someone underqualified and inexperienced.

This is very important too.  You have to go by feel of the place too.

Our boys were both in home daycares until preschool, which tend to be lower ratios automatically.

Part of the cost is going to be the ratio, and part will be experience.  There are a few really well known daycares in my town (larger ones) that are highly sought after.  They have lower ratios AND highly experienced staff that stay with the students through preschool.  As the children "age up" to the next group, the staff teachers go with them.  (As the kids "graduate out", the teachers move back to infant on a rotating basis.)  The staff at once particular place have been there a very long time, and they are paid better than most daycare workers in the area as a result.

This means higher cost.

[Ceridwen]

Lower ratio is better but it doesn't tell the whole story.  What are the credentials and experience of the staff? I would rather have a 1:5 ratio with someone with an early childhood education degree and 10+ years of experience than 1:3 with someone underqualified and inexperienced.

This is very important too.  You have to go by feel of the place too.

Our boys were both in home daycares until preschool, which tend to be lower ratios automatically.

Part of the cost is going to be the ratio, and part will be experience.  There are a few really well known daycares in my town (larger ones) that are highly sought after.  They have lower ratios AND highly experienced staff that stay with the students through preschool.  As the children "age up" to the next group, the staff teachers go with them.  (As the kids "graduate out", the teachers move back to infant on a rotating basis.)  The staff at once particular place have been there a very long time, and they are paid better than most daycare workers in the area as a result.

This means higher cost.

That's fantastic.  I love that.

[Kitsune]

And you need daycare why?

You are the reason people do not want to listen to MMM ideas.

This.

Also: my family needs daycare because my husband doesn't want to quit his job and be a stay-at-home dad.

[zhelud]

I would not put an infant in a day care where the ratio was worse than 1 adult for 3 babies.  In fact, I think that this ratio is necessary until about age 2.
4 or 5 babies is just too much for one person.  Try it yourself if you are skeptical.  The day care where my kids went would sometimes have hour-long whole-staff meetings, and parents were asked to fill in for the caregivers during those times (we had to earn a certain number of volunteer points.) The parents in the baby room were always exhausted at the end of the hour, and there would be 4 parents for 12 babies. It definitely made us appreciate the caregivers more.

Oh- and the training levels don't matter so much.  It is just as difficult for a teacher with a BA in early childhood ed to care for 4-5 babies as it is for a person with a HS diploma.  It is all about ratio.

[TrMama]

In addition to ratio, the other big things to look for are staff turnover, total number of babies in the room (more kids = more chaos) and whether the staff actually interact with the kids or stand around chatting amongst themselves. That last one can be tricky to evaluate since it's easy to put on a good show when parents are present. Check the attitude of the kids. Ignored kids tend to be cranky and fight with each other (especially near the end of the day).

I'd also ask what the center's policy is on personal cell phones among the staff. At a former summer camp I had to tell one of the staff members to turn off her cell and pay attention to the kids. She had a room full of kids and was ignoring them completely.

I'm so happy my kids are old enough not to need daycare anymore.

[Rural]

I worked in the field for a number of years, and I would not go over 1:4 for infants. That's manageable, but diaper changes still often mean one person watching 7 babies, which isn't ideal to say the least (wasn't allowed where I was). Any more would be dangerous.

Where I worked it was two teachers and a part-time aide or student teacher per every eight infants. The aides/ student teachers couldn't stay alone with the children, but still they were another set of eyes while one teacher was changing.

[mm1970]

Lower ratio is better but it doesn't tell the whole story.  What are the credentials and experience of the staff? I would rather have a 1:5 ratio with someone with an early childhood education degree and 10+ years of experience than 1:3 with someone underqualified and inexperienced.

This is very important too.  You have to go by feel of the place too.

Our boys were both in home daycares until preschool, which tend to be lower ratios automatically.

Part of the cost is going to be the ratio, and part will be experience.  There are a few really well known daycares in my town (larger ones) that are highly sought after.  They have lower ratios AND highly experienced staff that stay with the students through preschool.  As the children "age up" to the next group, the staff teachers go with them.  (As the kids "graduate out", the teachers move back to infant on a rotating basis.)  The staff at once particular place have been there a very long time, and they are paid better than most daycare workers in the area as a result.

This means higher cost.

That's fantastic.  I love that.

It is. We never attended this school because it's difficult to get into.  They only accept new students in late Aug/ Early Sept, when the older kids go to kindergarten.  The minimum age is 3 months.  Well, my second son was born in July, so he wasn't eligible until October.  By then they were full.  We got in the following year, but he was already happy in the home daycare.

Same with my older son.  He's a March baby but we needed daycare in June, not August.

[dailycycle]

Thinking about this again... In my experience with a corporate daycare with a larger room of kids (16 in one room, ages 0-24 months) the 1:4 ratio didn't seem great.  I think it's because they worked to maintain that ratio.  They always sent a staff member home if they could.  With non-corporate daycare and a room of 8 kids, much of the day you have two adults with 5 or 6 kids.